If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Man you guys make it sound like Granger is going to be Gerald Green or something, dude is a smart guy, he will figure out how to gel with the team, I mean come on he did engineering and basketball at the same time, no easy feat.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Why exactly do you think he will operate better with the starting unit? Let's look at this closely.

Because the starting unit is NOT going to put the ball in Granger's hands. The bench will do it, though. I have said several times that I want the ball to be in Paul's and Lance's hands. I want Danny to be used as 4th/5th option and a spot up shooter. This will not happen if he comes off the bench since the bench will probably rely on him to create shots since it lacks creators.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Because the starting unit is NOT going to put the ball in Granger's hands. The bench will do it, though. I have said several times that I want the ball to be in Paul's and Lance's hands. I want Danny to be used as 4th/5th option and a spot up shooter. This will not happen if he comes off the bench since the bench will probably rely on him to create shots since it lacks creators.

Of course any starter would have the ball more playing with the bench. So on one hand you are correct. I also agree that using Granger for spot up shooting is a good use of his skills. I get all that, but I've factored in a lot more things.

The starters are weak with ball movement at the guard position. It might be this team's greatest weakness on offense. Paul turns it over all the time. George protects it but does not facilitate ball movement well. Granger has very limited passing skills. That leaves both Hibbert and West accepting a lame pass into the post and fighting for every single shot. Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game. He would allow our superstar...yes I said it...play his natural position which is SF. Lance is even proving he can spread the floor too. Also, our starters were great defensively last year and the bench needed the upgrade. Why fix what is clearly not broken? Why break that all for a Jim O'Brien strategy? That is exactly what you are doing pulling Lance from the starting unit.

Then you have a player coming back after almost a year and a half off. He is very unlikely to be effective let alone consistently effective. It takes a good month to get in game shape and we don't want his warm up to lose home court.

If you want to say Granger starts and Lance finishes, I simply don't understand that logic. If Lance is better because he finishes, why should he not also start?

Then finally, you are rolling the dice, very possibly disrupting the starting unit at the wrong time. Imagine if that tendon builds up more scar tissue in March...losing months of development time for Lance as the starter. Lance is a young player and the more time he has with the starting unit, the better.

Finally, Granger is nothing but a rental. In 7 months he's probably gone. Let him help win games by contributing his talents without disrupting the starting lineup with another part of his body causing a DNP. We don't need to risk it. We already have a young squad that can get it done, particularly with a greatly improved bench.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Of course any starter would have the ball more playing with the bench. So on one hand you are correct. I also agree that using Granger for spot up shooting is a good use of his skills. I get all that, but I've factored in a lot more things.

The starters are weak with ball movement at the guard position. It might be this team's greatest weakness on offense. Paul turns it over all the time. George protects it but does not facilitate ball movement well. Granger has very limited passing skills. That leaves both Hibbert and West accepting a lame pass into the post and fighting for every single shot. Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game. He would allow our superstar...yes I said it...play his natural position which is SF. Lance is even proving he can spread the floor too. Also, our starters were great defensively last year and the bench needed the upgrade. Why fix what is clearly not broken? Why break that all for a Jim O'Brien strategy? That is exactly what you are doing pulling Lance from the starting unit.

Then you have a player coming back after almost a year and a half off. He is very unlikely to be effective let alone consistently effective. It takes a good month to get in game shape and we don't want his warm up to lose home court.

If you want to say Granger starts and Lance finishes, I simply don't understand that logic. If Lance is better because he finishes, why should he not also start?

Then finally, you are rolling the dice, very possibly disrupting the starting unit at the wrong time. Imagine if that tendon builds up more scar tissue in March...losing months of development time for Lance as the starter. Lance is a young player and the more time he has with the starting unit, the better.

Finally, Granger is nothing but a rental. In 7 months he's probably gone. Let him help win games by contributing his talents without disrupting the starting lineup with another part of his body causing a DNP. We don't need to risk it. We already have a young squad that can get it done, particularly with a greatly improved bench.

Man you worry about some strange stuff. Chemistry with the starters and Lance just wont be a problem, even if Lance comes off the bench. He's still gonna play with them daily between practice and games. Not to mention all of last year. I think you are really worrying about chemistry waaaaaaay too much. Granger coming back isn't like Rose coming back. He's not going to dominate the ball. The team doesn't expect this, neither does Granger.

Starting Granger this year will not disrupt a single thing for next year either. You are acting like things are so rigid. And it makes little sense. Its basketball.

And are you just baffled by Manu coming off the bench in SA or by Harden coming off the bench when he was in OKC? Just because you come off the bench, it doesn't mean all the starters on the team are better players than you. Its just about creating the best team, units, and match ups.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Man you worry about some strange stuff. Chemistry with the starters and Lance just wont be a problem, even if Lance comes off the bench. He's still gonna play with them daily between practice and games. Not to mention all of last year. I think you are really worrying about chemistry waaaaaaay too much. Granger coming back isn't like Rose coming back. He's not going to dominate the ball. The team doesn't expect this, neither does Granger.

Starting Granger this year will not disrupt a single thing for next year either. You are acting like things are so rigid. And it makes little sense. Its basketball.

And are you just baffled by Manu coming off the bench in SA or by Harden coming off the bench when he was in OKC? Just because you come off the bench, it doesn't mean all the starters on the team are better players than you. Its just about creating the best team, units, and match ups.

You say it's about creating the best team but say nary a word about my largest paragraph which is about that very point...ignoring more than half my post. Btw there are 5 situations to the contrary for every Ginobili but you all ignore that too.

Of course any starter would have the ball more playing with the bench. So on one hand you are correct. I also agree that using Granger for spot up shooting is a good use of his skills. I get all that, but I've factored in a lot more things.

The starters are weak with ball movement at the guard position. It might be this team's greatest weakness on offense. Paul turns it over all the time. George protects it but does not facilitate ball movement well. Granger has very limited passing skills. That leaves both Hibbert and West accepting a lame pass into the post and fighting for every single shot. Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game.

Here lies a basic difference between you and me. You believe that the team's biggest weakness on offense is passing. I disagree with that notion. I believe that our biggest weakness is shooting.

The two teams that went to the Finals shot 38.1% (Miami) and 37.8% (SA) from 3.

As you can see our shooting has been consistently below par. However, it's also true that we have been a team that tends to turn the ball over. That's also true. So, why do I believe that our biggest weakness is shooting and not turnovers? Well, I'll explain why.

It's because I believe that our problematic 3 point shooting contributes to our turnovers. That's why.

Our team averaged 15.4 turnovers per game last season. How many of those turnovers were caused because our bigs were doubled in the post?

Adding them all up and the result that we get is 6.4 Turnovers. Those turnovers are committed [i]exclusively[/u] by our bigs every game. Out of those players the only one that was bobbling passes left and right was Ian. The turnovers that were committed by the rest of them were either travels, offensive fouls or bad passes out of the double team. Excluding the offensive fouls which are par of the course the other two causes are eliminated if the opposition does not use doubles.

And how do we force the opposition to stop doubling our bigs? We hit the open 3. That's what we failed to do last year. That's why our bigs turned it over. Our spacing was below par because not all our perimeter players were dead-eye shooters. LeBron was able to play free safety every time that Young was on the floor and Wade was leaving Lance open a lot of times as well without paying for it (Lance only shot 30.4% from 3 in the ECF).

Having a 3rd dead-eye shooter in our starting unit will solve our shooting problem and help our turnover problem as well. That's why I want a shooter out there. And as I have said several times if Lance keeps shooting that well then I am absolutely glad that he's out there with the starting unit.

Why fix what is clearly not broken? Why break that all for a Jim O'Brien strategy? That is exactly what you are doing pulling Lance from the starting unit.

Seriously? Did I ever insult your ideas? If not then why are you insulting my ideas? Yes, calling it a "Jim O'Brien strategy" is a pretty big insult that I believe that is completely uncalled for.

It's not an O'Brien strategy. I don't believe that the 3 point shot is the be-all and end-all of basketball like JOB apparently did. I want to establish our bigs in the paint. I want to take full advantage of their post-up skills. I want to establish a strong inside-outside game. But you cannot establish that game if you lack the shooters that create the outside part. If you only play inside-inside then the opponent will double your bigs, crowd the paint and force you to turn it over.

Then you have a player coming back after almost a year and a half off. He is very unlikely to be effective let alone consistently effective. It takes a good month to get in game shape and we don't want his warm up to lose home court.

It is even more unlikely that he is going to be effective as the bench's 1st option. It's a lot easier to be effective as the 5th option that only takes wide open, spot up 3s. A Mike Miller that would get re-injured every time he shot the ball was able to be very efficient in the role of the 5th option that only takes wide open, spot up 3s. You think that he would be that efficient if Miami told him to "here, take the ball and go be the bench's primary creator"?

4 ) People think that Lance has a skillset that Granger does not possess ( creating offense for others ) where Lance can utilize that skillset to greatly bolster the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit ( something that I do not think that Granger would be very good at doing ) while playing enough minutes with the Starters to Finish/Close games and thus improving the overall effectiveness of the Team while reducing any heavy reliance on the remaining GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( one of the problems that we had last year ).

Then finally, you are rolling the dice, very possibly disrupting the starting unit at the wrong time. Imagine if that tendon builds up more scar tissue in March...losing months of development time for Lance as the starter. Lance is a young player and the more time he has with the starting unit, the better.

Lance will develop by having the ball in his hands. That's what matters the most and that's why he was excited to be the 6th man.

Even if Granger gets re-injured (something that is possible but it's not 100% certain like you seem to believe) it will not disrupt the team any more than it would if he was our 6th man. His minutes are not changing. Lance will still play more and finish games.

Finally, Granger is nothing but a rental. In 7 months he's probably gone. Let him help win games by contributing his talents without disrupting the starting lineup with another part of his body causing a DNP. We don't need to risk it.

I don't care if Granger is a rental. He is here and he is helping our chances to win a championship. That's what matters. We're trying to win a title right now!

We already have a young squad that can get it done, particularly with a greatly improved bench.

The bench is greatly improved only if Lance is out there with them creating shots and making plays. If he is not out there then the bench is still improved but it's no longer a candidate for one of the best benches in the league like it is with Lance.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

You say it's about creating the best team but say nary a word about my largest paragraph which is about that very point...ignoring more than half my post. Btw there are 5 situations to the contrary for every Ginobili but you all ignore that too.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Granger out for three weeks

The bench is greatly improved only if Lance is out there with them creating shots and making plays. If he is not out there then the bench is still improved but it's no longer a candidate for one of the best benches in the league like it is with Lance.

That was a well thought out and articulate post, but this is one argument that I just don't understand after the first three games of the season. Even though Vogel is starting Lance, he is still giving him plenty of opportunity to play minutes with bench players and control the ball with them. It's not an all or nothing thing. That's the beauty of it - Lance has positive qualities that can be offered to both the starting lineup and bench.

Conversely, if Danny comes off the bench, it's not like he's going to be playing most of his minutes with four other bench guys. He'll get plenty of clock with guys who start. Vogel learned his lesson after the 2012 playoffs that it's not wise to play 5 play five bench players at once. We're almost always going to have a starter out there, and Lance is going to get plenty of opportunity with bench guys even if he's starting the remainder of the season.

As the ECF's showed us, the first few minutes of a playoff games are crucial. Does Lance starting give the team the best chance to come out and set the tone early? With the way he's playing now, I think it's hard to argue he doesn't. Does he give us the best chance at the end of games when teams usually use their starting 5? Again, it's hard to argue he doesn't right now.......IMHO.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game. He would allow our superstar...yes I said it...play his natural position which is SF.

I know many folks believe the wings are so interchangeable it wouldn't make a difference if Paul moves back to the 2. I just happen to agree with BnGs post specific about Paul playing the small forward spot. Not that I have any insight at all, but rather 3 years ago in a casual summer coversation I had with Bill Keller he came out and told me Paul should be playing SF and Lance should be playing SG. Obviously he saw something in their skill set clear back then to form that opinion. Paul has blossomed and Lance is coming into his own. So the debate for me is not some much Lance vs Danny but Paul vs Danny and the forward spot.

You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

Re: Granger out for three weeks

I know many folks believe the wings are so interchangeable it wouldn't make a difference if Paul moves back to the 2. I just happen to agree with BnGs post specific about Paul playing the small forward spot. Not that I have any insight at all, but rather 3 years ago in a casual summer coversation I had with Bill Keller he came out and told me Paul should be playing SF and Lance should be playing SG. Obviously he saw something in their skill set clear back then to form that opinion. Paul has blossomed and Lance is coming into his own. So the debate for me is not some much Lance vs Danny but Paul vs Danny and the forward spot.

That's what I said in the other thread. So clearly you are very smart man!

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

Re: Granger out for three weeks

I know many folks believe the wings are so interchangeable it wouldn't make a difference if Paul moves back to the 2. I just happen to agree with BnGs post specific about Paul playing the small forward spot. Not that I have any insight at all, but rather 3 years ago in a casual summer coversation I had with Bill Keller he came out and told me Paul should be playing SF and Lance should be playing SG. Obviously he saw something in their skill set clear back then to form that opinion. Paul has blossomed and Lance is coming into his own. So the debate for me is not some much Lance vs Danny but Paul vs Danny and the forward spot.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Granger out for three weeks

That's what I said in the other thread. So clearly you are very smart man!

Not exactly..... I remember telling Billy Keller I was hoping the Pacers would select George McCloud (around 90?) and he was a Pippen fan. I think we know how that turned out. I just learned to nod my head when someone knows what their talking about.

You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

Re: Granger out for three weeks

I said in one of the other 17 granger/lance threads that if Lance established himself as the better player, I'd want him starting, but I no longer think so. I'd rather have the shooting.

So you want "the shooter" that was shooting .300 in preseason (.300 even when healthy for months because "he always starts slow") over the "non shooter" that is shooting over .600 from anywhere? yeah it makes sense.....

I'm going to have to pick your nit here Nuntius. TOV/g or even TOV/36 aren't particularly good measures. What you really want is the TOV% (see the advanced section in bbref). This scales turnovers by usage.

As you can see, West is really good at protecting the ball given his usage rate. He's much better than Hibbert, for example, despite having higher turnovers per game. Really the only one of our bigs who is astonishingly bad at TOs is Mahinmi, for the reasons you state.

I'm not sure about the argument that lack of shooting is causing turnovers. I think what UB stated in the turnover thread is closer to the truth, that our turnovers are a consequence of being a team that shares the ball. Or maybe our guys just aren't good passers.

But sure, we could use more shooting. Almost every team does. I just don't agree that it's the biggest need.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Well I think BKs coaching record wasn't very good so yeah I would have to take Vogel.

You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

Re: Granger out for three weeks

The starters are weak with ball movement at the guard position. It might be this team's greatest weakness on offense. Paul turns it over all the time. George protects it but does not facilitate ball movement well. Granger has very limited passing skills. That leaves both Hibbert and West accepting a lame pass into the post and fighting for every single shot. Then you have the fact that Hill and Granger lack court vision to boot. If they had Lance breaking down the defense and passing to the open man, you would see EVERYONE benefiting. Lance would place the ball in position for West to get an And-One. He would toss it to Paul for a dunk. He would catch Hill, who is really a small SG, anywhere on the court letting Hill play his game. He would allow our superstar...yes I said it...play his natural position which is SF. Lance is even proving he can spread the floor too. Also, our starters were great defensively last year and the bench needed the upgrade. Why fix what is clearly not broken? Why break that all for a Jim O'Brien strategy? That is exactly what you are doing pulling Lance from the starting unit.

Lance has been a starter for a year, and this is the exact same problem then than it is now. So why would Lance fix the problem, when he's clearly part of the problem?

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Granger out for three weeks

That was a well thought out and articulate post, but this is one argument that I just don't understand after the first three games of the season. Even though Vogel is starting Lance, he is still giving him plenty of opportunity to play minutes with bench players and control the ball with them. It's not an all or nothing thing. That's the beauty of it - Lance has positive qualities that can be offered to both the starting lineup and bench.

Conversely, if Danny comes off the bench, it's not like he's going to be playing most of his minutes with four other bench guys. He'll get plenty of clock with guys who start. Vogel learned his lesson after the 2012 playoffs that it's not wise to play 5 play five bench players at once. We're almost always going to have a starter out there, and Lance is going to get plenty of opportunity with bench guys even if he's starting the remainder of the season.

As the ECF's showed us, the first few minutes of a playoff games are crucial. Does Lance starting give the team the best chance to come out and set the tone early? With the way he's playing now, I think it's hard to argue he doesn't. Does he give us the best chance at the end of games when teams usually use their starting 5? Again, it's hard to argue he doesn't right now.......IMHO.

I think you've hit the nail on the head in your first two paragraphs why it doesn't really matter who starts/who comes off the bench. The way Vogel is structuring his lineups, both players are going to have plenty of time with the starters and plenty of time with the bench. Even if you have a strong feeling about which one fits better with the starers/bench, the minutes distribution between lineups are going to be small enough to not make much of a difference.

I'm not sure I understand your ECF's point though. In the first four games, the team who was leading at the 6 minute mark of the first quarter and the end of the first quarter also went on to win the game. In the last three games, the team that was leading at both those points lost the game. That's not much of a causal relationship, and certainly not something that I'd define as crucial to the outcome of the series.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Lance has been a starter for a year, and this is the exact same problem then than it is now. So why would Lance fix the problem, when he's clearly part of the problem?

Well through three games, Lance is second on the team in APG and is averaging the fewest turnovers of any starter. So it's safe to say that so far, he's been doing a better job of what BnG's has described than virtually anyone else. Lance is getting more opportunity than ever to control the ball and is succeeding in doing it.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

That was a well thought out and articulate post, but this is one argument that I just don't understand after the first three games of the season. Even though Vogel is starting Lance, he is still giving him plenty of opportunity to play minutes with bench players and control the ball with them. It's not an all or nothing thing. That's the beauty of it - Lance has positive qualities that can be offered to both the starting lineup and bench.

If Lance continues playing that well and Vogel keeps giving him plenty of minutes with the bench then I'm absolutely fine with that. I have said multiple times that I'm glad with how things are working out at the moment and I'd be very glad if things continued to work out that way throughout the season and the playoffs.

Conversely, if Danny comes off the bench, it's not like he's going to be playing most of his minutes with four other bench guys. He'll get plenty of clock with guys who start. Vogel learned his lesson after the 2012 playoffs that it's not wise to play 5 play five bench players at once. We're almost always going to have a starter out there, and Lance is going to get plenty of opportunity with bench guys even if he's starting the remainder of the season.

It's true that Vogel learned his lesson after the 2012 playoffs. At the moment he tends to have 2 starters on the court at all times. If PG or Lance are out there when Granger is playing with the bench then I have no problem with it.

As the ECF's showed us, the first few minutes of a playoff games are crucial. Does Lance starting give the team the best chance to come out and set the tone early? With the way he's playing now, I think it's hard to argue he doesn't. Does he give us the best chance at the end of games when teams usually use their starting 5? Again, it's hard to argue he doesn't right now.......IMHO.

Every minute of a playoff game is crucial. We cannot afford to have letdowns and droughs.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Well through three games, Lance is second on the team in APG and is averaging the fewest turnovers of any starter. So it's safe to say that so far, he's been doing a better job of what BnG's has described than virtually anyone else. Lance is getting more opportunity than ever to control the ball and is succeeding in doing it.

That doesn't answer my question.

BnG said the ball movement is crappy, and is arguing Lance would fix the problem. The problem is WITH Lance, so how does Lance fix it?

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Granger out for three weeks

Here is the link, if you want to pay for it or if you have a subscription, but the second sentence paints the picture.http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...tm_source=t.coPaul George at shooting guard and Danny Granger at small forward? Or is it the other way around?

Indiana Pacers coach Frank Vogel said there's not a significant difference. So the choices are between Frank Vogel, or Billy Keller.

I can't read the article but what is this saying: That between two specific players that are prototypical SF's it doesn't matter which one plays SG? Or is it saying that between any players the SG and SF is always interchangeable?

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."